Does a fish know that the water around it is polluted? When there's a medium in which people live daily, it can be hard to see the forces which are affecting your life. This January I have just enrolled in my local university's education program... and one thing I'm seeing straight away is the very profound sexism which the women (even professors) in the program have towards men. When you talk with them or when they're lecturing, it's like you're looking through a glass wall; they're nice people - but they have a very strong stereotype about men in mind which governs their attitudes around them. I think this sexism directed at men is a problem generally in the Usa, but there isn't this rift between the genders in places like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Britain.

This sexism expresses itself as an aimless fear of males... for example, you can see that the woman will have a hard time looking at you in the eye, but will warmly address other women. And it also can be seen as an attitude where men are held to impossible standards. Basically these types of unreasonable people will move the goal posts, and so it doesn't matter how kindhearted or civil you are... they will always see you through the eyes of their stereotype.

Of course, the teaching profession in the Usa is primarily dominated by women. Women will teach what they know. No matter how much feminists will try to shout down those who are "talking about stereotypes" - what I see around me is that by and large women are seeking the life of an aesthete. They want to find a husband to share a house with, so that they can have a lot of time for themselves. The women then, as adults, have time to read, and to appreciate art, and to do all those things. They believe in selflessness and caring and sharing. And these are the values that they try to instill in kids in school. Unfortunately, this kind of thing does not prepare boys very well for their future lives as adults at all. Boys, by and large, are going to need to go out into the world when they grow up and be a part of the quid pro quo system of the economy. They are going to need to have the stamina to work 40 hour workweeks their entire life. There are, these days, very few older women who want to date younger men to be their sugar momma. We men don't have the luxury of being aesthetes.

As a boy, I was a devout student (and I use the religious reference on purpose). I believed in all the values that my teachers were trying to instill in us. I remember that middle school was a wonderful time for me, because all of a sudden, we were finally getting on with the task of being real students - something that our teachers had us only play at doing for the previous six years. As I return to the university, and immerse myself in this education program, and as I go out to do my field study at local schools, I reflect on that time of my childhood. I remember how I discovered, as a young adult, that the real world was a very different place. And I was ill equipped to deal with it.

What we need, is for more men to go into the teaching profession. I think that we need to have some effort on the part of community groups to get this happening. Young women have lots of support in this area - mothers and aunts and grandmothers encourage their young girls to consider this career. The only men who seem to enter early childhood or elementary school programs though, are folks who stumble in, after realising on their own that they have this ability to bond with kids.

In the middle school classroom the other day, I saw this same social effect I saw in my peers when I was that age. I saw that the boys were like ships embarking on a trip across the ocean without a keel or a rudder. They were all set to embark on their journey into manhood using the stereotypes of what masculinity is as a guide.

Back on the university campus later that day, I reflected on the fact that young adulthood is that time when reality comes to call, and these men realise that they can't act out in that way that they used to as teens - it just doesn't work in the real world. These men have a rebirth so to speak, as they embark on the lonely job of making a life for themselves.

This past week, in one class we've seen a couple of films on the history of schools in the Usa. The thing that strikes me as the best model of those we have seen in the films is the system pioneered by William Wirt in Gary, Indiana. Kids there learned by doing - and they were engaged in all manner of activities from swimming, to cooking, to doing the school newspaper, to mechanics, and all these other practical skills. Former students of that school system there who were interviewed had nothing but great things to say about the school. It became a model for educators from all over the world. Unfortunately, as is all too common in the Usa, there was an unreasoning pushback from conspiracy theorists who believed that the school was trying to "prepare cheap labour for factories" - there was a riot and that style of schooling was abandoned. Parents wanted their students to focus on book learning, instead. They all wanted their kids to go on to be doctors and lawyers, and such. These parents had absolutely no understanding of how our economy works. Consumers choose which things they will support with their income - intellectual elites don't make that call. There is no way to make a decent income as an artist, or a writer, or a musician. Consumers don't pay for those things. They go to the library to get books, and they download music for free off the internet. Consumers pay for household goods, and heating oil, and car repairs - so that's where the job opportunities are going to be.

A century or more ago, there was a word in common use which was bandied about in the debate about whether children should be allowed to take employment in paying jobs. The word was "spoiled" - people still use the word glibly, today, and the old wives' tale is that when kids get a lot of material goods from rich parents, it harms their social development. This is obviously a fallacy. But it is true that laissez faire parenting, where children are not held to any standards of behavior, can create maladjusted children.

I don't really see this effect much anymore, when it comes to children. The children that I see who have behavioral problems have them because they're hit at home, regularly. These children are being taught that violence solves problems and teaches moral integrity.

However, I do see this "spoiled" attitude among women. It's the most common attitude I see out there among middle class women. For several years now, I have sought to reach out equally to men and women in my little tourist/college town where I live. As a man, myself, I have found that this doesn't work. We men tend to ritualistically give women a pass whenenver they are unkind or uncivil. We are trained to treat women graciously in all circumstances. And this is not good for young women. We men need to show a little disgruntlement, or a questioning glance on our faces when we see women act in a way that isn't constructive - just like we would for people of our own gender.

I have found I've hit a brick wall socially, in my life for many years. And I realise this is because a man in my community does not get appreciated, and does not receive any approval from women no matter what he does. If he's just really kind and nice, he's seen as a potential threat, because he could seduce you, or he might be "thinking with his dick." If he smiles at your kids, it's thought that he might be a potential pedophile. If he's cool and distant, he's seen as an asshole. There's no way to please these women. Women seem to want to judge a man by trying to read his mind. It's extremely rude. People who succeed socially, learn that giving others the benefit of the doubt is one of the most important skills a person could have.

So, my conclusion is that men have to find their most intimate friendships with other men... not with women (by "intimate" here, I'm not referring to acts of touch, I'm referring to someone who you regard as a soul mate). And when trying this out, the first thing I saw is that the bar is set really low. I suddenly see that I have the ability to be a good friend to these other men.

We men really can do a lot to better our gender, if we make it our agenda.

I was raised by a feminist mother. I remember when I was 13 years old that this new writer by the name of "Andrea Dworkin" was publishing some of her very influential works for the first time. I remember how disappointed I was in my single mother that she believed in Dworkin's ideas about men. I was just entering into adolesence and I realised I could be in a tight spot trying to grow up and become a man when my mother was somehow subscribing to all these really odd ideas about the nature of men.

I just finished a really rollicking debate about Dworkin's polemics over on a link sharing site I frequent a lot called reddit.

I take issue with the kind of stereotypes, hatred, hyperbole, and sexism which Dworkin sought to infuse the study of gender relations with. A case in point is this very fascinating chapter by her.

I see Dworkin as being very much in error, because she is trying to say that analogies represent proof. I would answer those models, with a simple overview of what I see in the problems that the West has when it comes to our gender relations.

Here in a nutshell, is that overview - which I penned, in order to reply to my conversation partner at reddit:

___________

OK... I see where you're coming from now. You adhere to that very standard conception of gender relations that has become so common in the West, in recent decades.

So now I have a point of reference to work with here, when discussing this with you. That makes me feel better.

In my estimation of things, to attribute all these negative things to men is a very sexist thing to do. And it's a very hurtful form of sexism... as hurtful as racism is, when expressed against ethnic minorities. These kinds of stereotypes, when internalised by the stigmatised group, can lead people to get stuck, to where they lose their ability to change the things that they're doing wrong. The banter at reddit is a prime example of how self-hating young men talk with eachother.

The fact that men take up leadership positions more often than women honestly is solely a result of the choices that people make in their lives. I was talking to a young woman on reddit the other day about this problem we have in our society where a large number of young women wish to marry men with a decade more life experience than they have. This leads to a social dynamic in our society between the genders which reflects this maturity gap within these marriages.

Being expected to take a leadership position when you're not ready to do so, is not a fun thing. I have been promoted to a managerial position a time or two in work situations. And I have discovered that there is a curse associated with being in a leadership position. It's that you make mistakes. And the mistakes you make have consequences for those you have power over. And those who suffer from your mistakes have every right to lambast you. But this effect occurs, no matter who is in those positions of authority. It is not a male problem. It's a problem that's always going to occur whenever there are leaders.

It's interesting to study cultures where women are in charge - there are some old silent monochrome documentary films, for example, which show the social dynamics in the Hopi and Navajo tribes. One sees that in a society where women are expected to take the leadership roles, the genders actually switch personalities. Women get these masculine personality attributes - they show stress in their body language, they become overbearing. Men appear more gentle, and meek. Another more modern example of this can be seen by studying the personality of New Zealand's Helen Clark - who just finished nine years as prime minister there.

I insist that women would make as many errors as men would in leadership positions... if we were to see a change over a long period of time where women were to be expected to be self sufficient and take leadership roles, and men would be expected to look for a cougar to marry when they turn 18. However, I agree that there would be a progressive transition period - because people who bring a new perspective to a field, can often initially solve a lot of problems. But there's nothing innately sour about men, or innately good about women - that was a big error Dworkin made as she portrayed the genders.

Hmmm... to continue on what no doubt will be a series of posts about parents and children... and adults and children in general....

Let's see... how can I approach this statement I'm about to make in a ginger manner?

Feminism has been bad for men; and the practices of single mothers have been bad for boys who grow up to be men.

That's a start.

It's so interesting to see this interplay between women and men in the usa. Women are often petulant when it comes to discussing men. They will make snide comments about them. There's a passive aggressive attitude that often comes out.

I understand that it is difficult to get and keep employment in fields which have been dominated primarily by another gender. People of a different gender have a different approach to their tasks, and sometimes there can be some serious moments where there is a falling out, only because the newcomer doesn't fall into the same patterns of behavior, or have the same social customs which the people of the primary gender in the field have. I have experienced that situation myself.

But women's snobbish attitude towards men goes beyond just their experiences in the workplace. It's a lot more deep-seated than that.

What I have deduced is that the source of this social friction seems to be the decision of young women to, by and large, seek out the affections of older men when they are dating and marrying. Women thus adopt social patterns where they learn to act as the follower rather than the leader - as the beneficiary, rather than as the benefactor. Men on the other hand are taught to be independent and self reliant, and this gives them more ability later in life to exert influence in their society.

On the whole, women would do far better to seek out age mates when they marry. This generation gap in a long term domestic partnership is often really unhealthy. A twenty year old is at a different stage of maturity than a thirty year old, who is certainly not in the same place in life as the forty year old. The younger person in such a marriage can easily start seeing herself (or himself) as being mentally unstable - only because her youthful way of thinking and reasoning contrasts sharply with the more mature wit of the older person. The older individual, on the other hand, can easily start seeing himself (or herself) as a workhorse - he has more responsibility heaped on his shoulders than he can comfortably handle. None of these perceptions would ever solidify if those in the marriage were age mates. Certainly many people can make marriages work, even though there is a hefty gap in years. But many cannot.

Now, it is certainly true that there is a profound natural attraction between people of different ages. We are schooled in this sort of interaction as children. People with more years of experience in life adore doting over the young. And the young blossom under the care and mentorship of those from earlier generations. Because we tend to become bemused about all these different aspects of human affection, and many folks blur them all together awkwardly with the term "sexual attraction," we tend to lack sound judgement when we choose a person to date... and some people even carry that mistake forward with them into the future when they marry someone - when there are irreconcilable personality differences.

So how does this relate to my first statement "feminism has been bad for men"? Well, the truth is, that young women who seek to marry for money, or seek to marry the dashing man in his thirties or forties are often hurting themselves. And in doing this, they themselves are responsible for the effects of that decision that they have made. They are training themselves to be followers rather than leaders. They are resigning themselves to a life of eternal childhood.

And the ironic thing that I've seen is that such women who end up getting a divorce after a bad experience with a man in this manner, if they keep any boys from the marriage - they will oftentimes perpetuate the problems which they see in male culture to another generation in how they raise those kids after their husband is no longer around. This is especially true when the boys enter their teenage years. The women who have been injured in bad marriages have a stereotype about men. And they try to fit their male children into the parameters of this stereotype. Stereotyping someone is the opposite of facilitating them. A person who facilitates a child does not see that child as a static individual, who has a predetermined future. A person who facilitates or mentors or enables, delights in seeing that which has not come into being yet. That kind person sees a bud and dreams about it changing into a flower someday - sees a grub, and is in wonder about the process by which it will metamorphosize into a butterfly. In contrast, a person who stereotypes, simply throws up her or his hands and gives up. A stereotyper does not see personal weaknesses in her seige as being cute, but rather as harbingers of bad things to come.

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that boys need good male role models and mentors, just like girls need good robust experiences with nurturing women.

note: When I am describing this disfunction I see in marriages, I am mostly describing the effects that I see in what most would call a "wealthy community." In most large cities, I think people are more prudent about how they marry.

North american men, why are you scared of affection? I'll tell you why I think it is... it's because of a prejudice against men which women have. Women have a stereotype about men which originates from folklore passed among them over the years when they talk about us. It often isn't prettty what they have to say about us. There have been many loud voices in the feminist movement who have insisted on denigrating and scorning and demeaning men, and male affection. Many men these days are raised by single mothers, who unwittingly create the very kind of man who they dislike, by raising their boys to conform to the stereotypes which they have about men. I know one woman, for instance, who recently finished her divorce proceedings, and has been sending her boys to martial arts classes because that's what she thinks men need, in order to protect themselves. It's quite shocking, actually.

In our society, the first decade of a child's life is spent with these immersive physical interactions - they are held and caressed by their parents, they wriggle around with their siblings and friends. The next ten years is spent insisting the child unlearn all that. When a boy hits puberty, he is told that his desire to touch other people has this odd connotation. All of a sudden, it's called "sexual attraction" - and except in very few situations, if he has this desire to touch someone, people say it reflects poorly on his character. Children throughout our country are accustomed to calling this kind of touching they do with caring adults "love". Young children will see it as personal rejection if an adult refuses to pick them up and hold them. Children still adore cuddling with their parents and caregivers into their elementary school years. When the indoctrination into the adult ritual of "sexuality" starts, a boy going into his teenage years begins to conflate affection with sexual attraction. At the end of his teens, the boy will usually have learned to spurn the act of giving and receiving affection - it's seen as too socially hazardous to risk your affections being misinterpreted by others. Thus young males become brash, and distant and cold. They won't even see this attitude in themselves; they think that they are being conscientious in that they are avoiding any problems associated with people misreading their expressions and body language.

We have to set a new trend, people. This is unacceptable. Single mothers need to really be conscientous to find their children good male role models. All of us men need to be smiling at kids we pass on the street. The secret, I believe, is to make sure the next generation feels secure in accepting affection from men, and giving affection to men. Boys will then grow up and see the way forward for themselves in their own adult lives - when they have seen this kind of affection modeled.

"Horton Hears a Who" is a very timely film, in my opinion. It's fascinating, however, to hear how the interviewees in these segments dance around the subject, and never really address what I think would obviously be the main real world issue the story alludes to. I remember reading this story as a child... in context with the children and adults who will be the audience or storytellers there really is only one most clear allusion in the story. And it deals with something that is not well-recognized in our society. But I think I have the standing to mention this here, having studied early childhood ed in college, and having worked with kids in various circumstances over the course of the years. The story speaks about the prejudice against men which they face when they want to work with kids, and bond with kids.

• 20 minutes of various interviews, courtesy of the cbc (mp3)